why do you think that almost all scientists and biologists believe that evolution is real?

Question

for all the arguments creationists have put forth, none have really motivated these scientist to think that evolution is a weak theory. do you think there are underlying reasons why scientists choose to not believe in creationism as valid science? I mean, for god sakes, these people are scientist for a living. this is their trade. They don't feel that creation has made any worthwhile claims against evolution. Are these scientist gravely intellectual dishonest becuase the just "want" evolution to be true? When they denounce creationist/I.D. as junk science, are they sinfully inclining themselves towards evolution? Are they falling for satan's trap?

Martin S: you should seriously consider a career in stand up comedy, my friend.
Atheist bias? How many scientist/biologist are deluded because of this bias? all of them? lol
what about christian bias? the only people that question evolution is people who do so for religious reasons.

Answer 1

they don't all believe that way

Answer 2

Because all the evidence suggests if is real.

By the way, again for the intellectually-dishonest, 'observations' in science refer to empirical (observable) evidence that form the basis of science. This in no way means directly observing everything happening. There is no logical reason for such a defination (which would exclude 99% of observations and science). I challenge anyone to come up with a logical reason for such a definition (other than it sounds good and I want it to be true when applied to science I'm too immature to handle).

No one has ever directly observed a proton or an electon, much less directly observed every nucleus and electron in a chemical reaction. But we know they exist from an overwhelming mountain of other observations and reason.

Most "Darwinists" (assuming means biologists and geologists) are religious. Fortunately, most are also intellectually honest.

Answer 3

Martin S hits a true note when he mentions the atheistic philosophy is behind evolution. It is a fact that almost all Darwinian scientists are atheists. It does not matter what evidence exists to disprove Darwinism, it does and most of them know it, they CHOOSE NOT to accept it because the main alternative is creation. Look into this and you will find it to be so.

Do a Internet search on this: About 2 years ago a FEDERAL APPEALS COURT DETERMINED THAT ATHEISM IS A RELIGION based on the life view of atheists. You don't have to believe in a deity to have a religious belief. When it comes down to it the creation vs evolution debate is more of a clash of religion and philosophy because the same science basically is there for both sides except for how it is interpreted. If you strictly follow the scientific method and go with the standard "observable" scientific testing and results you cannot in good conscience accept Darwinism, otherwise you will accept all kinds of speculations and artist made pictures based on imagination not fact and believe animated footage in nature specials for proof of evolution having happened. When school book committees want to have textbooks corrected to leave out the know errors being perpetuated about evolution they are often threatened with lawsuits by scientific or legal organizations whose members hold to the atheistic philosophy and even promote the Humanistic Manifesto where Naturalism is stated as the ideology of choice.

Answer 4

Many scientists are taught only macroevolution at a young age. Most schools won't even allow any consideration of any other idea for life's origins. Those who do not believe in macroevolution are ridiculed on college campuses.---rarely is there any intellectual debates of the facts. But there are still some brave and credible scientists and biologists who are Creationists.
Just for thought: Louis Pasteur showed life could not come from non-life. Rudolf Virchow helped to confirm that all cells come from preexisting cells, not chemical imbalances.When other scientists (Huxley and Haeckel)tried to prove them wrong, they had to admit that it was evident that life did not spontaneously create itself.
Also, the word 'evolution" has two different meanings:
1. microevolution--changes within a species, which both Creationists and Evolutionists accept.
2. macroevolution--changes over eons of time, that transform an organism into a completely different kind of organism
There is no reliable proof for this(macroevolution)--only a few questionable transitional fossils. This type of evolution is not a fact.

Answer 5

It is narrow minded, ill informed, arrogant and bigoted remarks like yours that clearly expose how little you know about maintream science..!

There are none so blind as those who WILL NOT see, and that is you to a tee my friend...!!

Comprehend this oh deluded one..: The scientific method does NOT want anything to be true or false. It only describes what is there. If something isn't there, then it is not described..

It's a simple, honest and altruistic way to describe the natural world around us, and if any of it is at odds with fancifull and ridiculous religious doctrine, then so be it, but don't try to make creationistic explanations look clever, because they are the exact opposite..!!

Answer 6

@ Martin S.

I challenge your post. You say, quote: "There are scientists today who admit that the theory of evolution is not supported by the evidence and they go on to say that the only reason they support it is because the only other alternative involves a supernatural explanation and they are not going to go there."

The entire basis of science is that there is a natural explanation for all observable phenomenon. An intellectually honest scientist should never "go there"

You then quote PHD Watson: "Evolution [is] a theory universally accepted not because it can be proven by logically coherent evidence to be true, but because the only alternative, special creation, is clearly incredible."

This is simply false, or taken out of context. Either way it is inccorrect. Everything I have read about evolution from credible sources is logically coherent. The premise, (even if creationism were true) is sound, and sound evidence does support it.

Quote: "So it’s not a question of biased religious creationists versus objective scientific evolutionists; rather, it is the biases of the Christian religion versus the biases of the religion of secular humanism resulting in different interpretations of the same scientific data"

I will grant you that everyone, scientist or creationist, is biased. However, this ignores the fact that most scientists (in the US) are raised within the Christian religion, and identify themselves as such. If anything, the bias should be for creationism, not against it.

Quote: "The fact is that scientists are not really as objective and dispassionate in their work as they would like you to think. Most scientists first get their ideas about how the world works not through rigorously logical processes but through hunches and wild guesses. As individuals, they often come to believe something to be true long before they assemble the hard evidence that will convince somebody else that it is. Motivated by faith in his own ideas and a desire for acceptance by his peers, a scientist will labor for years knowing in his heart that his theory is correct but devising experiment after experiment whose results he hopes will support his position."

Hunches and wild guesses? Um, yes. They then refine those hunches into hypotheses, which must be tested. The resulting theory must withstand peer review, and the results of experiments must be repeatable. Scandals do occur, such as with the Korean cloning, but that demonstrates that work is reviewed carefully.

"Professor Richard Lewontin, a geneticist (and self-proclaimed Marxist), is a renowned champion of neo-Darwinism, and certainly one of the world’s leaders in promoting evolutionary biology. "

And his being Marxist is relevant and supports other hypotheses how?

Quote: "We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfil many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door"

Please point out these "patent absurdities" he speaks of. I have yet to see them. As for the rest, I don't see how it supports your argument. As I said before, why would a scientist "allow a divine foot in the door"? If your goal is to find out WHY or HOW something happens, you must assume there is a material, natural explanation. Otherwise, the very question becomes moot. The answer will always be "God did it".

Answer 7

Evolution is based on scientific arguments. Creationism is based on religious arguments. Logically, scientists, people who have devoted their lives to studying and using scientific principles, are more inclined to agree with the ideas based on science. If someone is inclined to believe in theological ideas, he or she is obviously more likely to join the clergy than to be a scientist.

Answer 8

Simple common sense observation. Creatures adapt and change to their surrounding environments. That's evolution. Contrary to popular belief Darwin did not say that we descended from monkeys. He said we are realted to them, which is true. Only one chromosome away from chimps. Either way if you're asking from a creationist's stand point, there's no reason you can't believe in G-d and evolution too. They don't contradict each other, or at least I know for sure that microevolution doesn't.

Answer 9

It's been repeated ad nauseum in Y!A that science has nothing to do with you superstitious people and we would rather keep it that way. Nobody is trying to dissuade you from whatever it is you wish to believe. We can rely on observable, empirical, measurable evidence, subject to specific principles of reasoning, and you can rely on texts written by people whose idea of higher mathematics was counting beyond 20. O.K?

Do me a favour. If you people believe that scientists and biologists are evil, then the next time you get ill with something infectious, go to your local temple/church/whatever and mingle with your kind instead of seeing your "evil" doctor with his instruments of satan.

There are deeply religious people in science who have no problems reconciling their faith with their profession. So it is extremely insulting to read such undeserved spite and venom from ignorant fools who have decided on a literal angle on texts that are patently absurd. The sooner people like you die out, the better it will be for the human gene pool.

Answer 10

there is just so much evidence for evolution that it is almost no longer just a theory and could be considered a fact. i don't see how evolution negates the possibility of a God who created our world. in my eyes, i can easily see that evolution is the mechanism that God uses to create a perfect world. the two ideas are not complete opposites, they can simply go hand in hand. the idea that we humans evolved from primates is still a bit questionable though, because if the primates evolved, why are they still here?

Answer 11

I love the circular logic often employed by evolution's proponents: no "real" scientist supports Creationism or Intelligent Design... because the minute a scientist expresses any doubt in evolution, he or she is no longer classified as a "real" scientist.

Let me give you the Christian perspective on why so many people believe in evolution. It’s simple, most people believe what they want to believe and they don’t want there to be a God. You see, if God created us, then He also owns us. If He owns us, then He has a right to set the rules by which we must live. If He has set the rules by which we must live, then we are accountable to Him. They don’t want to be accountable to God; they don’t want to be controlled.

Are we the ones with blind faith? Where you there when something popped into existence from nothing and exploded? No, well do you see something pop into existence from nothing today? Were you there when non-living matter gave rise to life? No, well do you see non-living matter giving rise to life today? Where you there when single-celled organisms gave rise to many-celled organisms, when invertebrates gave rise to vertebrates, when ape-like creatures gave rise to man? No, well do you see it happening today? You have to believe that matter came into existence by itself and then arranged itself into information systems by blind chance. That is what goes against real science.

As Dr. Jonathan Sarfati says, we need to quit calling evolution a theory; that is giving it too much credit. “Goo to you” evolution is an unsubstantiated hypothesis or conjecture, not a theory.

Oh, and check this out (scroll down): http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/bios/